Giannis vs Wilt

[TrueLAfan]

My questions about Wilt largely stem from the same problems/issues I have looking at his career as a whole. He was, largely, three different players. He was the offensive focal point that scored in record numbers. He was the Swiss army tool that played well in close to every facet of the game. And he was the low post defensive stopper, ultra high efficiency player. You can argue, as many do, about his efficiency and post season play and focus on numbers. I get that. I know that, as an offensive player, he took the Sixers to (tie) a team record in wins and was one (tough, tough) loss from taking out the much favored Celtics in the EC finals. The mid-period Wilt took the Sixers to a league record in victories and a title. The Lakers in Wilt’s final period set a league record for victories and won another title. You can argue about how well it can translate, and I agree about a lot of the issues. But you can’t really argue about the fact—and it is a fact—that Wilt was used in vastly different ways and was largely extremely successful at each.

The issues are:
1. The fact that he was so different at different times in his career, which makes him harder to assess as a whole.
2. The fact that he and his teams didn’t sustain (enough) that level of success.
3. His numbers occurred at a time and in a league where the raw numbers have canted beliefs for (“He’s unbelievable!”) and against (“That never could happen now!”) him, leading some people to consider him totally obsessed with statistics.
4. In some (imo, strange) ways, #3 has been used against him, i.e. Wilt’s durability and never fouling out of a game; “He pulled back on D after he picked up his fifth foul!”

How much of that is Wilt? How much is his teammates? How much is the system(s) and times in which he played? It’s hard to quantify and assess—and especially hard for Wilt. It makes it hard to assess his actual career, much less try to put it in the context of the modern game. There’s just too much what if—for instance, I think Wilt in the modern game would have developed a three point shot. But I think he would have developed it because he would want to be perceived as more skilled (and less of a “giant”). And I’m totally unconvinced it would make him a better player. Wilt shot nearly 62% from the field in his final six seasons. I’m not sure his efficiency would be better with a three. For better or worse, I think he’d draw fewer fouls. He wouldn’t get as many offensive boards. It’s harder to consider Wilt in a modern context than any other historical player.

FWIW—I’d take Giannis over Period 1 Wilt. I’d take Period 2 Wilt over Giannis. And let’s say I think Period 3 Wilt would be interesting. So my answer is—no answer.

Oh-- big thanks to 70sfan for the YouTube clip showing Wilt’s attempt to block the Heinsohn hook shot in the final minute of Game 7 of the ’62 EC Finals. Incredible athleticism by Wilt in the probably/maybe goaltending call.

[penbeast0]

Maybe save it for the Wilt vs Kareem thread.

No, I think it's very relevant to this thread why you think Wilt's skillset doesn't translate, but another traditional big does. If you think Wilt lacked the necessary skill to thrive today, but his contemporary doesn't, then it's very relevant to this cross-era comparison.

I'm with 70s here, I think it's VERY relevant.

Kareem didn't have a lot of range and he wasn't mobile on D in the same way that we see from a guy like Kevin Garnett. He was a traditional big who operated mostly in the low post, with some forays into the high post at times. He was a classic rim protector, and not as good at it as Wilt, nor was he as good on the glass.

So what is the difference between the two? Kareem struggled with big, strong guys like Moses, Lanier and Thurmond, the latter of whom played during Wilt's career, and also later on Hakeem. Hell, even old Wilt gave some trouble to Kareem.

It's hard to see a skill set reason which suggests that Wilt is so outmoded compared to someone like Kareem. And it's hard to see the same compared to someone like Shaq or Duncan, for that matter. Like, between the two, the major difference was essentially FT shooting, which is worth noting but doesn't merit the kind of hyperbole you're using here, O+D.

For that matter, hard not to see Wilt's physical skills and game translating better to today's NBA than Shaq's. He had more range, was faster, quicker, more of a jumper, more of a shot blocker, and didn't seem to have unusual difficulties with PnR which was a big thing even when he played. Shaq is wider, stronger, better able to establish post position, had quicker post shots where Wilt used more extension (an advantage to Shaq) and was more aggressive both in going to the rim and defensively where Shaq was more willing to give really hard fouls (check out the numbers on Shaq v. every other player of his era in terms of percentage of shots against him where the player was able to finish through the contact and score, it's Wilt level insane). But Shaq's advantages are more keyed to his post presence so of the two, Wilt's game would translate better today.

I used Shaq as a comp to avoid the question of how strongly to penalize these two greats for their inability to shoot accurate free throws.

[Ol Roy]

I'm not a fan of Wilt's BBIQ. Not really a fan of Giannis' either, but it's better.

The main factor for me is that Wilt is an even greater mismatch today. Not sure how he could be consistently stopped with the size of today's bigs (we should call them mediums). And, I do like that he is a primary rim protector. So, I'd probably go with Wilt.

[penbeast0]

...
2. The fact that he and his teams didn’t sustain (enough) that level of success....

If, as I do, you believe that Bill Russell was the greatest team force ever in the NBA, Wilt's "failings" are much easier to excuse. Take the many playoff series that he lost to Bill Russell (and the one he won) out of the equation and his playoff series win % is a hair higher than that of Michael Jordan or pretty much any other major GOAT candidate.

In this way of looking at it, he can be excused for losing to the GOAT winner of all time, and his dominance in the playoffs against everyone else makes it clear that it wasn't about him being a playoff failure.

[70sFan]

I'm not a fan of Wilt's BBIQ. Not really a fan of Giannis' either, but it's better.

Why do you think so?

[tsherkin]

For that matter, hard not to see Wilt's physical skills and game translating better to today's NBA than Shaq's. He had more range, was faster, quicker, more of a jumper, more of a shot blocker, and didn't seem to have unusual difficulties with PnR which was a big thing even when he played.

I don't know that he had significantly more range. His fadeaway was about the same range as the shots Shaq liked more when he was with the Magic. It's not like he was ripping 15-footers on the regular, after all. Quicker when he was younger, certainly. Not so much in his older self, when he was closer to Shaq's rookie weight. Definitely a much more focused shot blocker than O'neal over most of his career, though, and obviously a lot more of a rebounder. As far as leaping, while I'm confident his actual max vert was higher than Shaq's, I don't think it matters. Most of his rebounds and blocks weren't at elevation significantly higher than what Shaq managed on the regular, as is generally the case, so I don't think it's super important. Raw vertical leap is, past a given threshold, somewhat overrated.

The shot-blocking and rebounding would be the bigger things: Wilt really emphasized those, whereas Shaq did not. PnR... I don't think we really saw anyone airing Wilt out from 20-25 feet on the regular, so it's hard to evaluate. He was permitted to defend closer to the basket because the 3pt line both didn't exist and wouldn't be used meaningfully for decades after he retired, so I'm not sure we REALLY got to see that at the same level as even in the 90s with the Jazz.

Shaq is wider, stronger, better able to establish post position, had quicker post shots where Wilt used more extension (an advantage to Shaq) and was more aggressive both in going to the rim and defensively where Shaq was more willing to give really hard fouls (check out the numbers on Shaq v. every other player of his era in terms of percentage of shots against him where the player was able to finish through the contact and score, it's Wilt level insane). But Shaq's advantages are more keyed to his post presence so of the two, Wilt's game would translate better today.

I'm with you until the bolded part. Wilt would be in as much trouble as Shaq as an offensive player in today's game. He had no range to speak of and blew donkeys at the foul line even worse than Shaq (barely worse, to be fair). I don't think that positions him well to translate into today's game on that end. His value on the other end, of course, would be better in any era, so maybe that helps enough to matter.

To me, while respecting that Wilt was an incredible player, his style of play is perhaps the most over-sold. With Philly and LA, his shot range profile looks to me pretty similar to Shaq's: almost exclusively inside 8 feet or so. Lots of dunks, finger rolls, drop hooks, tip-ins and the like. Not a ton of face-up. You got the odd banker from the left side, and he ever did pop a FT line jumper in his life, but then, so did a younger Shaq. Not too different with the Warriors. Run the court, get deep, get the pass, wheeling fadeaway or dunk. Lather, rinse, repeat, right? He did have a little spring on his fadeaway which launched him a bit further than his lift-off point, though, which bears some mention and consideration. But basically everything started at or below the middle hash marks, before and after they widened the lane. Dude knew what his strengths were, even if he let media criticism get into his head a little here and there (by his own admission in the mid-60s, if you listen to that interview).

If, as I do, you believe that Bill Russell was the greatest team force ever in the NBA, Wilt's "failings" are much easier to excuse. Take the many playoff series that he lost to Bill Russell (and the one he won) out of the equation and his playoff series win % is a hair higher than that of Michael Jordan or pretty much any other major GOAT candidate.

In this way of looking at it, he can be excused for losing to the GOAT winner of all time, and his dominance in the playoffs against everyone else makes it clear that it wasn't about him being a playoff failure.

This is certainly fair. The Celtics were pretty far ahead of their time defensively, enough so that their unimpressive offense was manageable. They were at or above league average on O only once in Russell's career, and didn't win a title that year (it was 67, entertainingly enough).

Wilt taught us the weakness of the SPOF offense strategy, and how even high-efficiency volume scoring goes only so far... a lesson later taught again by a guy like Dantley. Decent to good for floor raising, but it has its limits. And so he adapted, and looked a lot better with Philly, and then fit in quite nicely with LA. And they did what? 4 Finals and a WCF appearance in 5 years, which isn't too bad at all, heh. Only the one title, but there were various issues with health and Baylor and so forth.

Wilt definitely gets the sharp end of the criticism stick, but he's also the guy who broke up the Boston title run, and I'm reasonably confident they had the best record in league history until LAL set it with 69 in 1972, right? You can pretty easily write off his Warriors run as the same sort of situation Lebron was dealing with in Cleveland the first time around, or Jordan before 91. High-end competition, insufficient peripheral support. Paul Arizin was old by the time Wilt got there, and while he was strong in the RS, faded when they did make the playoffs after 1960. Gola was reasonable. Guy Rodgers was pretty good, especially in 63, but on the whole, those weren't good offensive teams, and they were merely above-average on D from 61-63.

Now, that raises the question of "were they not good enough, or was the team deploying Wilt poorly?" It's a reasonable question, because the roster wasn't THAT different in 64 when they started killing it on D and made the Finals, right? And of course, we saw the Sixers win the 67 Finals with Wilt averaging under 18 ppg, and a much wider distribution of shots, coupled to better D than the Warriors typically played.

Fun to ponder.

[Ol Roy]

I'm not a fan of Wilt's BBIQ. Not really a fan of Giannis' either, but it's better.

Why do you think so?

You know, I probably wouldn't be able to quantify it. If you have an insight I'd be interested in reading it.

[penbeast0]

I've always wondered how much of the Arizin offensive drop off was due to coaching schemes that, if they didn't get a fast break, just had the team dump it into Wilt then stand around waiting for the ball to kick out rather than using Arizin as an on ball creator. I haven't watched enough to tell but it's one of the possible reasons.

The miserable post season for Arizin is another thing altogether. The ridiculously good postseason for Tom Meschery next to Wilt I've always assumed (again, without doing the work to be sure) was because the defenses were choosing him as the guy to leave to double/triple Wilt leaving the mad Russian to score 20+/game in their playoff run one year. Wilt bent things out of shape for everyone.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'll go Wilt. He was just an outlier athlete to an absurd extent, dude could compete in pretty much everything that relied on athleticism according to what we read. Also in the few video that is there with him playing it seems to be accurate.

I think he was badly utilized for a big portion of his career, but playing more than 48 MPG and scoring 50+ PPG is the type of thing that only a superb athlete could do, I don't care if it was in a weaker era.

[tsherkin]

I've always wondered how much of the Arizin offensive drop off was due to coaching schemes that, if they didn't get a fast break, just had the team dump it into Wilt then stand around waiting for the ball to kick out rather than using Arizin as an on ball creator. I haven't watched enough to tell but it's one of the possible reasons.

It certainly sounds possible. He was older and had a lot of mileage on him by that point, which I'm sure played, but the structure of the offense seems another likely avenue to explorer. Dude was a 42.1% FG guy in the RS (which was quite good relative to his era, 107 FG+) and 4 of his last 5 postseasons were under 40%, 3 of them under 38%. Not entirely out of the normal realm of drop, to be fair, and two of them were either 2 or 3 games long, so that sample is a little crappy. One bad game throws everything into the pit, right? Further, he was at 99 FG+ in 57, then 102 and 105... so it wasn't until 61 and 62 where he dropped all the way off to 79 and 88 FG+ in the playoffs... which were also his last two seasons in the NBA.

I don't think age and mileage caught him to him SO badly that he was destroyed in those last two postseasons from them, especially in 61. In 62, he'd fallen off a bit in terms of his FG%, but was still decent. So I think there's probably something to the strategy you're discussing, given that 62 was Wilt's 50 ppg season.

[Mazter]

What surprises me and certainly I didn't expect is that Wilt barely had positive impact on team offense. Only two seasons (1966, 1972) really stand out in his career. Furthermore did he lead a below average offense during 5 of his 7 scoring titles. Besides that, he did not seem to have an inmediate big impact anywhere he landed and did teams recover fine after he left offensively.

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.5>   -2.4   -0.9    0.9   -0.7   -1.6   -5.9   <-2.3
Sixers     -0.8>   -0.6    0.4    5.4    1.3                 < 2.6
Lakers      4.9>    3.0    0.1    1.6    5.2    2.6          < 0.3


One would think that his presence would boost any offense, especially in the 60's, but still it seemed like he hindered the flow of team offenses more than helping it. I think that this would even magnify more in today's game where efficiency is the key

So I would go with Giannis. Better range, better FT shooter and proven face to the basket which suits more to today offenses.

[Djoker]

As good as Giannis is defensively, Wilt was considerably better. Just a monster blocking shots in the paint and also pretty quick for his size so strong horizontally as well. I think a case can be made that Wilt is the 2nd best defender ever after Russell. Thus even if with a low end valuation of Wilt's offense, I'd still have him comfortably over Giannis. Wilt is a superior physical specimen (taller, stronger, even more athletic) and way more durable. Giannis getting hurt in 3-4 playoffs in his prime really hurts his value.

[70sFan]

What surprises me and certainly I didn't expect is that Wilt barely had positive impact on team offense. Only two seasons (1966, 1972) really stand out in his career. Furthermore did he lead a below average offense during 5 of his 7 scoring titles. Besides that, he did not seem to have an inmediate big impact anywhere he landed and did teams recover fine after he left offensively.

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.5>   -2.4   -0.9    0.9   -0.7   -1.6   -5.9   <-2.3
Sixers     -0.8>   -0.6    0.4    5.4    1.3                 < 2.6
Lakers      4.9>    3.0    0.1    1.6    5.2    2.6          < 0.3


One would think that his presence would boost any offense, especially in the 60's, but still it seemed like he hindered the flow of team offenses more than helping it. I think that this would even magnify more in today's game where efficiency is the key

So I would go with Giannis. Better range, better FT shooter and proven face to the basket which suits more to today offenses.

So, let's start with the fact that for the 1960s, the more reliable estimations exist at thinkingbasketball.net and if you use them instead, this is how it looks:

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.2>   -0.2   0.0    2.1   0.2   -1.2   -5.2   <-0.9
Sixers     -0.1>   1.1    0.6    4.7    2.2                 < 3.5
Lakers      4.1>    1.1    0.1    2.5    6.1    3.7          < -0.3


So, the Warriors lift is quite significant, I definitely would say that a +3 swing is "inmediate big impact" for a rookie.

Then you include 1965 Warriors team as the part of his team, but he only played 38 games during that season and the Warriors played at WOAT level without him on offense (and overall). You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

[70sFan]

I don't know that he had significantly more range. His fadeaway was about the same range as the shots Shaq liked more when he was with the Magic. It's not like he was ripping 15-footers on the regular, after all.

According to NBA.com, Shaq's 15+feet numbers look like this (according to Basketball-Reference):

2000 RS: 3/8
2000 PS: 1/1

2001 RS: 3/12
2001 PS: 0/0

For Wilt, I have only a sample of 42 incomplete games that gives us total of 405 FGA from 1962-73 period. Wilt went 1/2 in that sample, so almost nothing. You are right, neither one took +15 feet shots on regular basis.

It's worth taking a look at 10+ shots volume (according to Basketball-Reference):

2000-01 Shaq in RS: 10.9% of total shots
2000-01 Shaq in PS: 9.1% of total shots

1962-68 Wilt (255 shots total): 13.7% of total shots
1962-73 Wilt (405 shots total): 10.9% of total shots

It seems that Wilt took more shots outside of 10 feet in his prime. My sample gives Shaq 9.6% of total shots, so similar to Basketball-Reference numbers.

Anyway, here are the charts I made for both:

Wilt

Spoiler:

Shaq

Spoiler:

[Mazter]

You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

Look man, I don't know what's up with the hostility. I don't "seem to create" anything, I couldn't care less. I went into the number and was a bit surprised and decided to post that. The numbers are from bbref, which I use mainly, if you don't trust them, good for you, to each their own. As of the rest, thanks for the info.

Regardless, my choice remains with Giannis.

[Top10alltime]

What surprises me and certainly I didn't expect is that Wilt barely had positive impact on team offense. Only two seasons (1966, 1972) really stand out in his career. Furthermore did he lead a below average offense during 5 of his 7 scoring titles. Besides that, he did not seem to have an inmediate big impact anywhere he landed and did teams recover fine after he left offensively.

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.5>   -2.4   -0.9    0.9   -0.7   -1.6   -5.9   <-2.3
Sixers     -0.8>   -0.6    0.4    5.4    1.3                 < 2.6
Lakers      4.9>    3.0    0.1    1.6    5.2    2.6          < 0.3


One would think that his presence would boost any offense, especially in the 60's, but still it seemed like he hindered the flow of team offenses more than helping it. I think that this would even magnify more in today's game where efficiency is the key

So I would go with Giannis. Better range, better FT shooter and proven face to the basket which suits more to today offenses.

So, let's start with the fact that for the 1960s, the more reliable estimations exist at thinkingbasketball.net and if you use them instead, this is how it looks:

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.2>   -0.2   0.0    2.1   0.2   -1.2   -5.2   <-0.9
Sixers     -0.1>   1.1    0.6    4.7    2.2                 < 3.5
Lakers      4.1>    1.1    0.1    2.5    6.1    3.7          < -0.3


So, the Warriors lift is quite significant, I definitely would say that a +3 swing is "inmediate big impact" for a rookie.

Then you include 1965 Warriors team as the part of his team, but he only played 38 games during that season and the Warriors played at WOAT level without him on offense (and overall). You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

What was the Warriors offense with and without Wilt, in 1965?

And if you don't mind me asking, what do you think of Wilt overall? (His defense, and his offense, and where it ranks overall) I'm asking you, since you have the knowledge on 60s basketball, more than any of us here.

[70sFan]

You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

Look man, I don't know what's up with the hostility. I don't "seem to create" anything, I couldn't care less. I went into the number and was a bit surprised and decided to post that. The numbers are from bbref, which I use mainly, if you don't trust them, good for you, to each their own. As of the rest, thanks for the info.

Regardless, my choice remains with Giannis.

Hostility? Apologies if that came out as hostile, that was not my intention at all. English isn't my first language and sometimes I miss the emotional load of the words I used. Again, sorry for sounding harsh.

[70sFan]

What surprises me and certainly I didn't expect is that Wilt barely had positive impact on team offense. Only two seasons (1966, 1972) really stand out in his career. Furthermore did he lead a below average offense during 5 of his 7 scoring titles. Besides that, he did not seem to have an inmediate big impact anywhere he landed and did teams recover fine after he left offensively.

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.5>   -2.4   -0.9    0.9   -0.7   -1.6   -5.9   <-2.3
Sixers     -0.8>   -0.6    0.4    5.4    1.3                 < 2.6
Lakers      4.9>    3.0    0.1    1.6    5.2    2.6          < 0.3


One would think that his presence would boost any offense, especially in the 60's, but still it seemed like he hindered the flow of team offenses more than helping it. I think that this would even magnify more in today's game where efficiency is the key

So I would go with Giannis. Better range, better FT shooter and proven face to the basket which suits more to today offenses.

So, let's start with the fact that for the 1960s, the more reliable estimations exist at thinkingbasketball.net and if you use them instead, this is how it looks:

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.2>   -0.2   0.0    2.1   0.2   -1.2   -5.2   <-0.9
Sixers     -0.1>   1.1    0.6    4.7    2.2                 < 3.5
Lakers      4.1>    1.1    0.1    2.5    6.1    3.7          < -0.3


So, the Warriors lift is quite significant, I definitely would say that a +3 swing is "inmediate big impact" for a rookie.

Then you include 1965 Warriors team as the part of his team, but he only played 38 games during that season and the Warriors played at WOAT level without him on offense (and overall). You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

What was the Warriors offense with and without Wilt, in 1965?

And if you don't mind me asking, what do you think of Wilt overall? (His defense, and his offense, and where it ranks overall) I'm asking you, since you have the knowledge on 60s basketball, more than any of us here.

I am quite certain that I am not the most knowledgeable about the 1960s here, but thank you.

We don't have offense and defense WOWY splits for 1965 Warriors. I don't remember if I made some rough estimations, would have to check my files.

I have Wilt in my top 10 all-time list at 7th spot. I think he's a top 10 defender ever and probably top 20-25 offensive player ever.

Some people overstate his offensive impact because of raw numbers, but others rely too much on mediocre offensive results in 1960-64 period to conclude he's not an elite offensive player. I think the problem is that people don't look at the strength of these teams in a fair context. The Warriors had absolutely horrible offensive bench units during that period and they always had some kind of offense destroyer playing significant minutes (Grabowski, Hightower, Sauldsberry etc.). The starting lineup wasn't amazing either - Rodgers is a historically overrated PG who tanked his team's offense basically in all scenarios, Gola stopped being a positive offensive player quickly after he got drafted. Of course Arizin was good and Meschery was solid as a finisher, but that's not a talent you can push to elite offensive results (unless you are GOAT-level offensive player).

I also believe that this whole theory of Wilt playing in "scoring/passing modes" is way overhyped. I can agree that Wilt was a top tier playmaking bigman like Jokic (who is?), but I don't find anything on the tape that would suggest mid-60s Wilt struggled to combine scoring and playmaking. I have heard that the earlier games show Wilt not trying enough to create for others and I can see that, but by 1964 Wilt was a well-rounded post machine.

Another thing people sometimes forget is that Wilt was basically the GOAT offensive rebounder. In terms of scoring off putbacks, I think he's the only one who can rival Moses in that regard and the scoring data I collected show him scoring ridiculous amount of points from off. rebounds. That gave him a lot of off-ball value and people sometimes miss that, probably because we don't have ORB stats.

At the same time, there are some concerns about his offense. His FT shooting was very problematic. He didn't move off-ball nearly as much as someone like Shaq or Kareem. He was more mechanical in a way that he had a very clear spots on the floor he like to operate from (he was very similar to Hakeem in that regard). I see fair criticism of his feel and passing skills, although I still think it's overstated. Then the biggest thing is his playoff regression, which is a true thing - even if overstated at times.

Still, I think that healthy 1964-68 Wilt is a monster offensive player. In a great scenario, I'd take him over almost all centers on offense with the exception of Jokic, Kareem and Shaq. Guys like Moses, Hakeem and Duncan can compete with him, but I think I'd take him over all of them.

[Top10alltime]

So, let's start with the fact that for the 1960s, the more reliable estimations exist at thinkingbasketball.net and if you use them instead, this is how it looks:

Code: Select all

            Pre>    1st    2nd    3rd    4th    5th    6th   < Post
Warriors   -3.2>   -0.2   0.0    2.1   0.2   -1.2   -5.2   <-0.9
Sixers     -0.1>   1.1    0.6    4.7    2.2                 < 3.5
Lakers      4.1>    1.1    0.1    2.5    6.1    3.7          < -0.3


So, the Warriors lift is quite significant, I definitely would say that a +3 swing is "inmediate big impact" for a rookie.

Then you include 1965 Warriors team as the part of his team, but he only played 38 games during that season and the Warriors played at WOAT level without him on offense (and overall). You seem to create the illusion that the Warriors were better without Wilt than with him with that +3.6 swing, but the Warriors didn't have Wilt for the majority of the season and they added Rick Barry the year after, so it's not really a signal you are looking for.

What was the Warriors offense with and without Wilt, in 1965?

And if you don't mind me asking, what do you think of Wilt overall? (His defense, and his offense, and where it ranks overall) I'm asking you, since you have the knowledge on 60s basketball, more than any of us here.

I am quite certain that I am not the most knowledgeable about the 1960s here, but thank you.

Then who would be?

We don't have offense and defense WOWY splits for 1965 Warriors. I don't remember if I made some rough estimations, would have to check my files.

Then how are you able to say Warriors played WOAT level without him on offense.

I have Wilt in my top 10 all-time list at 7th spot. I think he's a top 10 defender ever and probably top 20-25 offensive player ever.

Why is he in these spots? Who is above him?

Some people overstate his offensive impact because of raw numbers, but others rely too much on mediocre offensive results in 1960-64 period to conclude he's not an elite offensive player. I think the problem is that people don't look at the strength of these teams in a fair context. The Warriors had absolutely horrible offensive bench units during that period and they always had some kind of offense destroyer playing significant minutes (Grabowski, Hightower, Sauldsberry etc.). The starting lineup wasn't amazing either - Rodgers is a historically overrated PG who tanked his team's offense basically in all scenarios, Gola stopped being a positive offensive player quickly after he got drafted. Of course Arizin was good and Meschery was solid as a finisher, but that's not a talent you can push to elite offensive results (unless you are GOAT-level offensive player).

Why are all these guys that bad? Also, would you say Wilt is a top 2-3 offensive player in that period?

I also believe that this whole theory of Wilt playing in "scoring/passing modes" is way overhyped. I can agree that Wilt wasn't a top tier playmaking bigman like Jokic (who is?), but I don't find anything on the tape that would suggest mid-60s Wilt struggled to combine scoring and playmaking. I have heard that the earlier games show Wilt not trying enough to create for others and I can see that, but by 1964 Wilt was a well-rounded post machine.

Scoring is excellent, for sure (top 10 all-time, right above Jokic, and just below Kobe). But his playmaking is an ehhh, except for vision which KD has (and we all know KD is not a good playmaker).

Another thing people sometimes forget is that Wilt was basically the GOAT offensive rebounder. In terms of scoring off putbacks, I think he's the only one who can rival Moses in that regard and the scoring data I collected show him scoring ridiculous amount of points from off. rebounds. That gave him a lot of off-ball value and people sometimes miss that, probably because we don't have ORB stats.

Do you have PPP data for this? Or anything that you have...
Also is offensive rebounding only thing putting him at good off-ball

At the same time, there are some concerns about his offense. His FT shooting was very problematic. He didn't move off-ball nearly as much as someone like Shaq or Kareem. He was more mechanical in a way that he had a very clear spots on the floor he like to operate from (he was very similar to Hakeem in that regard). I see fair criticism of his feel and passing skills, although I still think it's overstated. Then the biggest thing is his playoff regression, which is a true thing - even if overstated at times.

So is he a good, or not good off-ball player? But yeah, looks like he has mid footwork (not fluid player) as well.

Still, I think that healthy 1964-68 Wilt is a monster offensive player. In a great scenario, I'd take him over almost all centers on offense with the exception of Jokic, Kareem and Shaq. Guys like Moses, Hakeem and Duncan can compete with him, but I think I'd take him over all of them.

Alright, thanks 70sFan

[tsherkin]

Anyway, here are the charts I made for both:

Wilt

Spoiler:

Shaq

Spoiler:

Looks about right. All in the key, with Wilt clustered a lot more on the left block than the right. I suppose it does show that he was shooting a little more from the bottom half of the circle than Shaq, but I don't think that really means much in the context of why we discuss range, you know? Still, excellent data as always, 70sFan; thanks for sharing!

EDIT: Any FG% for those shots beyond 10 feet?